Comment on the White Ribbon Campaign

There has been some debate on the White Ribbon Campaign’s Facebook page under a picture of a woman with bullet holes all around her face and the words “Killing me softly with his words”, and elsewhere. The nice white ribbon people have now removed my comments and seem to have blocked me from further input.
As everyone here knows, I don’t write abusively and censoring my comments is simply evading rather than addressing worthy challenges. My last comments involved some variations of the type of campaign they are running, as follows:

E hoa bro, show you’re against burglaries of white people’s houses

Sisters, show you’re against false allegations towards men in the Family Court

(1935) Jews, show you’re against financial exploitation of Germans

Homosexuals, show you’re against spreading AIDS to the heterosexual community

Muslims, show you’re against terrorist bombing of western kindergartens.

Not cool huh? No, and the male-bashing white ribbon campaign is equally unacceptable.

I encourage others to comment on their Facebook page. Feel free to use my campaign variations above. It shames them and makes the point. Their censorship response simply shows they are unable to defend their sexist campaign.

FOR THE ATTENTION OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN REFERRED HERE BY THE WHITE RIBBON PAGE ON FACEBOOK.

You will be here because you will have followed a link suggesting that this site contains similar content to alleged ‘misogynistic comments’ that were deleted from white ribbon’s facebook page.

Many people were outraged when white ribbon chose to upload a sexist poster that revictimised many men who had suffered domestic violence. An online discussion ensued, but anybody who disagreed with white ribbon was denigrated and insulted.

Three (by my reckoning) individuals who had successfully discredited some of white ribbon’s claims had their comments deleted, were blocked from posting, and were then subjected to vicious slander from white ribbon, which they were unable to defend themselves against. One victim even had it implied that he supported rape, when an out of context quote from somewhere else (it most certainly did not come from MENZ) was associated by implication with him and with MENZ.

I have followed this whole saga and I saw for myself that the comments that were deleted were moderate and inoffensive. But they did discredit some of white ribbon’s views, and thereby threatened their credibility.

Please do not judge those who have been silenced when you have not seen what they actually had to say. Don’t believe the hype, but demand to see the deleted comments and decide for yourself!

The only abuse has come from white ribbon, but they choose to hide behind lies, deceit and abuse.

They have abused people and they have silenced them. That is totally unacceptable for any group that claims to be an anti violence organisation.

I was also banned, as were several people.
I did suceed last year in having White Ribbon posters banned from all Courts in NZ
I sent WR an email saying that WR was clearly a failure, that white ribbons have not cought on, and this email debate shows exactly the one sided nature of WR, and why it has been widely ignored.

I concur Hans.
I wrote a respectfully worded comment on their facebook wall pointing out the marginalization of women’s violence against men. After a short while I went back to their site. It had been removed. Such censorship proves to me they don’t want to hear anything which challenges their ideology which posits men as primary aggressors, rather than a balanced view that men and women commit domestic violence in roughly equal numbers. Thus they seem intent on demonizing men in order to fill their coffers further. I didn’t really expect more, but just did the experiment of posting on their wall to let someone there know that there are other views on domestic violence and that i shall be doubling down on my efforts to support men’s relief from domestic violence. As Shinhee Yi succinctly puts it in #1 – This is one reason I do not support any women’s movement.
Thank you and keep up the good work.

A screen shot of Hans’s post has now been posted on the White Ribbon Facebook page. This follows a barrage of hateful rants from them against men who dare to stand up to them.

They know their credibility is under threat, and with it their taxpayer funding. They are clearly getting desperate. With a bit more pressure, these sexist leeches can be exposed for what they really are.

However, any comments you make here may potentially be used against you. So please, stay polite and stay moderate. I know it can be hard when, especially when you are the victim of systemic abuse. But it will be used against us if we lower ourselves to their level.

Why don’t you start your own campaign that targets female on male violence, or violence in general then, if you are upset by the White Ribbon Campaign? Or your own organisation that encourages men to speak up?

The nice White Ribbon people have displayed this post on their Facebook page, but have added some comment from elsewhere by someone else saying “If some female get rolling drunk especially wearing a very short skirt at 2 in the morning and gets raped I do not feel that sorry for her”, implying that was somehow associated with me. Now I don’t know where that comment came from and I certainly don’t hold that opinion.

I am more than happy for them to display my post, the challenge in which they have not been able to answer. However, to add some comment showing tolerance of rape and imply that it is associated with my post is very dishonest, indeed violent. Of course, they have blocked all those who challenged them including me so I can’t even respond to highlight their dishonesty.

I have now kept a copy of their slander and I intend to take it further.

Why don’t you start your own campaign that targets female on male violence, or violence in general then, if you are upset by the White Ribbon Campaign?

As I pointed out, this campaign would be considered totally unacceptable if it discriminated against any other group than men. So if a campaign encouraged Muslims to show they were against terrorist bombings and some Muslims objected to this, would you just tell them to go start their own campaign on their own behalf? They would rightly reply “That’s not the point. Your campaign discriminates against us, implies we are the only group who do such acts and implies that nobody needs to stand up against such atrocities when we are the victims. This is unacceptable.” Exactly the same applies to the White Ribbon Campaign. Please be clear, I use this and other examples only to highlight the stereotyping and discrimination inherent in the White Ribbon Campaign.

I realize hearing these challenges is difficult for people who think the White Ribbon Campaign is socially positive. Most supporters no doubt have the best of intentions. But it is as socially damaging in targeting men as it would be for any other group. Discrimination and stereotyping on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation and other characteristics have long been seen as dangerous, divisive and socially destructive. Why would anyone imagine that it’s suddenly ok to direct such discrimination and stereotyping against men?

To be honest with you Hans, I don’t want to be your enemy and I am sure most movements in NZ don’t want an enemy either. Is there not something for you to stand FOR? If you just keep attacking everyone and do your best to make everyone nothing, then you harm real people, and dominate real voices. I don’t know what happened to you, and I do understand cause and effect. But can’t you see everyone has freedom of voice?

Firstly, white ribbon is a men’s organisation, although it can’t of course be considered part of the legitimate men’s movement.

Secondly, white ribbon has been blocking people who diasgree with its ideology, removing their posts, and then slandering them when they have no opportunity to defend themselves. I have seen people who only made perfectly polite and respectful comments accused of making ‘hateful rants’.

That is totally unacceptable behaviour from anyone, let alone an organisation that purports to be an anti violence group.

WhiteRibbon on Facebook – by apparently putting words into your mouth that you haven’t said, show themselves to be unworthy of public respect or debating with them. This devious, manipulative tactic is also known as a straw man argument.

I was curious to see if the quotation actually existed on MENZ website? I searched for “rolling drunk” and also for “very short skirt” and such a quotation did not seem to show up in the Google search. Possibly the White Ribbon person or robot is getting their sources all mixed up?

In essence, I didn’t see this quote as being too unsympathetic, as it is qualified by “too”.

The White Ribbon facebook page doesn’t seem to give the names of organisers and if they are unable to put their own identity onto their statements and challenges, then again they unworthy of being taken seriously, in any sense at all.

On the White Ribbon Facebook page, there was a young woman with a note saying “I need feminism because people tell me that I should be thankful that my rapist wanted to have sex with me”. This just reminded me of the old “All men are rapists” from many years ago. If this is the level that they target debate, then they are appealing to sympathy only from nonthinking people.

We need to be challenging all of these misleading and manipulative organisations Government funding, so that their funding is cut down to the extent of only funding honest, transparent social services for all citizens.

It is unfortunate that the unwitting Families Commission (supporter of White Ribbon) has gone along with these social manipulators. If the Families Commission took a balanced approach to protecting children and those who do protect children on a daily basis, then they would be a much needed force in society. By supporting DV initiatives that allow caughts to proceed without any evidence at all, they reduce themselves to be abusers of good parents and they are just relationship vandals.

We need to protect our children, especially our boys, from this identity destroying style of abuse. That undercutting level of male abuse can be relied upon to drive or trigger the occasional suicides of vulnerable male teenagers. As male’s suicide is a larger issue than females, this issue is one that we should be more sensitive too. All of us should be more considered in what we say in public, in the vein of attacking men’s identity in these critical ways.

A media release about the White Ribbon Facebook censorship has been published.

Unable to explain why stereotyping and discrimination is ok only when done against men, the White Ribbon people ran for cover and deleted all criticisms of its campaign. Then, having blocked me from responding to defend myself, they published a libellous item clearly intended to associate me with some unrelated comment from an unknown source that showed insensitivity and blame toward victims of rape. Having sat back and allowed numerous readers to proceed under the mistaken belief that the rape statement was mine, the nice White Ribbon people eventually made a statement to clarify that the statement was not from me.

In the comments for their libellous item the White Ribbon people claimed

Unfortunately many comments have had to be deleted. A significant amount of time was spent explaining why each argument was not based in fact. What seems to occur is that the comments start as a discussion, but when the flimsy evidence is politely challenged with evidence, statistics and intellectual analysis, the abuse begins. This is not the site for that abuse.

Well, I followed the little debate they are referring to. Firstly, nothing I read was abusive. Objectors to the campaign continued to tell the truth through reasonable challenges. The White Ribbon people deleted all but their own supporters’ contributions then set about to misrepresent the nature of the deleted comments, to rewrite history in a way that suited them better than the truth.

Secondly, the White Ribbon people did not provide evidence or statistics. You can see for yourself because they left their own and supporters’ comments there. Their responses were little more than self-justifying slogans and attempted rationalizations of their sexist campaign that became increasingly inadequate as answers to the valid challenges. The only statistics mentioned in the debate as far as I can remember was in one (deleted) comment I made referring to the proportion of intimate heterosexual partners killed and significantly injured by men vs women.

Talk about abuse of power and control! These people are bullies, acting violently and dishonestly to silence and harm those who dare to challenge them. And they pretend they are interested in reducing violence!

They are certainly having a go at MENZ. I don’t know what planet this woman comes from, but I have been visiting MENZ for many years, and I know that her claim that, “Any females who posted were subjected to the “nuts and sluts” defence/offence and abused”, is completely untrue.

Angela Church I am so grateful to have found this page. I found the MENZ site about eight years ago. At that time, I could find no “opposite” online content concerning the issues they raise in NZ and therefore believed their views to be representative and tolerated. Any females who posted were subjected to the “nuts and sluts” defence/offence and abused. Hans Laven, by the way is a clinical psychologist and often files submissions to parliamenty select committees concerning new legislation. I hope none of his work makes it to the Family Court.

FOR THE ATTENTION OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN REFERRED HERE BY THE WHITE RIBBON PAGE ON FACEBOOK.

You will be here because you will have followed a link suggesting that this site contains similar content to alleged ‘misogynistic comments’ that were deleted from white ribbon’s facebook page.

Many people were outraged when white ribbon chose to upload a sexist poster that revictimised many men who had suffered domestic violence. An online discussion ensued, but anybody who disagreed with white ribbon was denigrated and insulted.

Three (by my reckoning) individuals who had successfully discredited some of white ribbon’s claims had their comments deleted, were blocked from posting, and were then subjected to vicious slander from white ribbon, which they were unable to defend themselves against. One victim even had it implied that he supported rape, when an out of context quote from somewhere else (it most certainly did not come from MENZ) was associated by implication with him and with MENZ.

I have followed this whole saga and I saw for myself that the comments that were deleted were moderate and inoffensive. But they did discredit some of white ribbon’s views, and thereby threatened their credibility.

Please do not judge those who have been silenced when you have not seen what they actually had to say. Don’t believe the hype, but demand to see the deleted comments and decide for yourself!

The only abuse has come from white ribbon, but they choose to hide behind lies, deceit and abuse.

They have abused people and they have silenced them. That is totally unacceptable for any group that claims to be an anti violence organisation.

I posted a respectful comment (no name calling directly or by inference) on the White Ribbon FB page saying I did not support their campaign as it was only for women; and that as they clearly showed no interest in supporting male victims of Domestic Violence that my energy was going to support that cause instead.
5 minutes later it had been deleted by whoever administers the page.
These folks obviously have power and control issues.
At least they will be aware that there are others with a view differing to their own.
It’s a shame they don’t respect the fact that as research shows many NZ men are also victims of domestic violence.

Their efforts to silence the male supportive voice aren’t just abusive, they’re actually rather very daft ideologues also. For if you view what they do as a business venture they are denying the existence of many folks they could also get paid for providing a service to. Creepy.

Gwaihir (#23): Actually it’s not correct that studies reveal each gender is equally as violent. What those studies (and many others internationally) have shown is that women initiate physical violence against heterosexual intimate partners approximately as often as men do. However, the physical violence from men causes much more serious injury on average to women than that caused by women against men. Nevertheless, men are killed and seriously injured by female heterosexual intimate partners, at approximately 25% the rate that women are.

Further, men are much more often the victims of violence in our community generally than are women. The fact that it is mainly (but not only) men who commit that violence against other men is irrelevant. The victims of such violence die and hurt just as much regardless, and male victims of violence should not be excluded from a government-funded campaign against violence. It’s no more ok to reduce our concern for male victims of violence simply because other males largely commit it, than it would be to reduce our concern for (say) Maori victims of violence because other Maori might mainly cause it.

Remember too, the White Ribbon Campaign is not one against ‘domestic violence’ specifically but against violence generally.

NZ society has long recognized the principle that stereotyping and discrimination against groups on the basis of gender, race and other fundamental human characteristics is dangerous and unacceptable. Feminsim claimed to be based on that principle. Yet here we have a government-funded campaign stereotyping men as the ones who commit the only violence worth being concerned about, and discriminating against male victims of violence by excluding them from consideration in an anti-violence campaign. And in line with what history both ancient and recent has consistently demonstrated, the White Ribbon Campaign attitude in practising stereotyping and discrimination has already led them to such erosion and dehumanization of the group they discriminate against that they think nothing of lying about what that group does, preventing members of that group from expressing any opinion or defending themselves, and commmitting and encouraging serious verbal and emotional violence against members of that group. That’s what’s happening (just read through the comments on their Facebook page concerning men who dare to speak up in support of other men) and that’s why some intelligent people oppose the White Ribbon Campaign, not because we oppose efforts to reduce violence.

I think the main point that was being made Hans, not only by me mut even by others was that they were deleting any post that even slightly failed to extol the virtues of their cause. The other word is censorship! John Brett sensibly copied his letter then it was gone within a few minutes. (Face book “Power to the people”)

Here is the original of “If some female get rolling drunk especially wearing a very short skirt at 2 in the morning and gets raped I do not feel that sorry for her.”:

Chuck Bird If an adult or even teenager teasing a dog that is tied up and the dog gets loose and bites them I do not feel all that sorry for them. If someone is driving through Otara and gets cut off and gives someone the finger. I do not feel all that sorry for them if they get a few smacks in the head. If some female get rolling drunk especially wearing a very short skirt at 2 in the morning and gets raped I do not feel that sorry for her.

I know what century it is and also what planet this is. I beleive in dealing with the world as it is. Feminists like you are putting women at risk.

Many Muslims think any woman who shows a bit of leg or cleavage is a slut and deserves to be raped. It you lived where a lot of Muslims lived and had to walk home 500 metres ona dark street how would you dress? If you visited Iran how would you dress.

Just to be clear I certainly do not think a woman jogging in shorts is asking for it. However, if she is doing so through the Domain in Auckland on her own after dark she is plain stupid.

The gut of his contributions was that women can do something to reduce the risks of becoming rape victims. I’m gob smacked at the many abusive replies he received for making this comment. I certainly have tried to teach my girls how the real world operates in the hope that it helps them avoid danger.

Pete, thanks for clarifying who was the source for the comment. Where was it published?
It is unfortunate that there hasn’t been any constructive debate with the White Ribbon people. In essence, the attempted debate was people talking past each other. This is commonplace in electronic communication, ie EMAIL. It is commonplace among people who frequently visit this site, let alone with other groups.

I guess that personal meeting or telephone conversation is safer and more productive in a highly stressed encounter.

The intimate DV debate seems to be focussed on men injuring women and men psychologically abusing women.

I suggest that when women injure or abuse men, this should be treated as seriously as when men do it to women. By failing to address situations when women are the abuser, the damage done to both the children and the man remains unaddressed. A caught that selectively offers help, ends up just being an abuser itself.

I have seen this several times in my own family and friends. As the years have passed, the consequences have become clearer and unable to be hidden. Psychological abuse done by a woman can be as damaging as when done by a man. I personally know several children who have suffered seriously, but not in visible wounds. Both the fathers and these children have suffered unnecessarily, because when help was clearly requested, the possibility of abuse was discounted, because the abuser was a woman. These lame “judges” are worthless.

A Facebook page has been started called White Ribbon Day Debate
White Ribbon Day New Zealand have shut down any debate about the White Ribbon campaign. This space is to allow that debate to continue
Please log in and add your comments, they will be highly visible to the target audienceQ!https://www.facebook.com/groups/391716290877922/

#31..typical females not looking after themselves and blame everyone else when it turns to shit for them .i dont want to see women get hurt but if they attract unwanted attention then do something about it or good bloody job

At least its nice to know that when that young woman rammed her fingers up between by legs when I was walking up some stairs at a party, 25 odd years ago, that it wasn’t my fault, or because of what I was wearing (I did look quite good in Levi’s back then).
Finally I realise she was fully responsible for her actions; it “wasn’t the alcohol talking”; it wasn’t the way I was dressed; I didn’t invite it; I wasn’t asking for it; and (as a male), I didn’t “probably enjoyed it”.
She sexually assaulted me. She is accountable and deserves to be prosecuted (and attend a sex offenders programme).
Can we expect the Government take steps and provide funding to stop this sort of violence? To even acknowledge women are capable of, and do commit acts of sexual assault? That their drunkeness doesn’t reduce or eliminate their responsibility for their actions?
Yeah right.

Re comment #34: This web blog allows free speech and tolerates expression of almost any opinion and response. That policy is set by the blog’s owner John Potter.

I strongly dissociate myself from the opinion expressed in comment #34 by a blogger with the name ‘Ford’. I do not agree with blaming the victims of sexual crimes or other crimes, and I do not withhold empathy for the suffering experienced by those victims. Regardless of whether we remember to lock our car, we are not responsible for the actions of the thief who steals from our car. Regardless of what clothes a woman wears, where and when she wears them, she is not responsible for violence against her.

I have previously challenged the blogger ‘Ford’ for other statements encouraging or condoning violence, and the damage such statements do to other contributors through association, but (s)he has simply become defensive and rejecting of any such feedback. I suspect that comment #34 was another of many retaliations against me by her/him for daring to challenge previous statements condoning violence. (S)he has now provided White Ribbon supporters with more ammunition to damage me through associating me with a comment on MENZ that says “good job” when a woman is subjected to rape. His/her comment brings into disrepute the many writers here who generously give their time to provide well-reasoned and researched contributions to the gender debate in NZ. Quite frankly, ‘Ford’ is making it unsafe for any reasonable person to participate on MENZ under their real name. It looks increasingly likey that ‘Ford’ is a troll whose real motivation is to damage this site and its contributors.

Buddhist teachings might criticize the person who left valuables clearly visible in an unlocked car, for deliberately placing unnecessary temptation in the way of a poor person. However, that does not mean that the car owner is responsible for the thieving behaviour by the poor person, or that the car owner’s pain at losing the valuables deserves scorn.

The gut of his contributions was that women can do something to reduce the risks of becoming rape victims. I’m gob smacked at the many abusive replies he received for making this comment.

One must always be mindful that when talking about rape and prevention, there is no actual rape going on – only a discussion in which blame is being weighed and apportioned. It is to that threat that feminists are applying themselves.

I’m not so sure all feminists would expose themselves to danger and endure hardship, misery, pain or criminal attack, so long as they were confident the blame for it would always be borne entirely by someone else – but I’m fairly sure that they would never allow themselves to be blamed for anything at all.

In other words, take no notice of what they say about rape – they’re not actually talking about it in the abstract, and probably cannot.

John Brett (#33): Great idea to open the new Facebook page! Thanks heaps. I would like to put my comment on that page as soon as possible and I have requested membership under my Facebook name ‘Fred Dagwood’. I have always been uncomfortable using Facebook at all because of its irresponsible set up in which people make throwaway comments on someone else’s page that can then be used by all manner of agencies to damage that person. But I’m not bothered that some people will know the true identity of Fred Dagwood.

Pete (#31): It’s commendable to warn people about dangers and ways to decrease risk. However, I’m not surprised that Chuck Bird received criticism for saying he did not feel that sorry for victims of sexual violence. The damage and suffering for the victim will still be significant. I believe we have responsibility for protecting vulnerable members of society even if that vulnerability has been self-inflicted through alcohol or otherwise. The man who rapes a woman is despicable even though the woman he raped was in a vulnerable state; if anything, his violence is even more reprehensible in that situation.

Similarly, if a woman bashes a drunk man and steals his wallet, she is despicable. I remember discussing Heather Mills’ separation from Paul McCartney and her greedy efforts to seize as much as possible of the money Paul had previously earned through his talent and work. The women in this discussion blamed Paul for failing to make a watertight prenuptual agreement. But this reasoning suggests that if anyone is vulnerable then they are fair game for exploitation, the exploiter’s behaviour is ok and the victim doesn’t deserve sympathy. I don’t agree with that.

I do support Hans’ comments. However, it seems to me that John Potter supports this website as a bitch and scream website, rather than for tempered and sensible discussion of issues. Although I value tempered discussion most, I also know that it isn’t always possible to separate one from the other, without denaturing the discussion. I have done a share of the uncontrolled bitching and axe-murders, so I can’t be holier than thou. Early discussion usually has to tolerate intemperance. This is fine, but it can’t then communicate effectively to the wider public.

This is why it is important that when people wish to develop a discussion, that might be read and understood by the wider public, then it is essential to moderate this discussion, both in terms of rudeness and also to stay within the range that the wider public are willing to listen to – even if we feel that this is understating the essential argument. If we want to be able to protect our children, this is where the most productive discussion will be.

So, thank you John Brett for getting in and doing this!

Notwithstanding that I support Hans’ comments, it is also important to keep in mind the critical and unachievable need to balance care for victims and protect victims of false allegations. This brings to mind the recent Investigator programme about the Crewe murders and the police unethical-values and mismanagement of the investigation. The end justified the means?

The caught$ were spectacularly, dully ineffective in righting these wrongs.
The work of justice was done by friends and journalists, not by legal-workers.

If we paid by performance, then our glorious judges might have difficulty in buying their food, let alone supporting mistresses?
They must be among the least responsible beneficiaries within our borders?

When men are not listened to on their merits and depowered by mangled, dishonest, incompetent, corrupted justice, they are just as easily abused as women.

Very well put Hans, your normal well presented and lucid arguments. Welcome To John’s face book page it was started after the official White ribbon site started deleting any post seemingly from a male and/or failing to extol their virtues. I believe it will be as safe as it can be with personal abuse not being tolerated, however robust debate is encouraged.

I think Ford is probably genuine, and while I often don’t agree with his sentiments, I recognise that his view of women is not uncommon. Sexist campaigns like White Ribbon have an underlying agenda to increase divisions within society, so growing numbers of alienated, angry men are inevitable.
It is also worth thinking about who benefits if abuse and domestic violence increases, and who would loose if we pursued policies that resulted in less.

I realise that people with a Radical Feminist perspective can not understand that opinions which are not shared be me as the site owner would not be censored immediately as they would do.

I admire men who are prepared to use their real name on MENZ, but because I know the threat of persecution is very real I also allow commenters to be anonymous.

Murray (#32): Look for an item with this summary: “If this skirt means ‘yes’ to you. You’re speaking the language of Rape. Surprising just how many people don’t get this. Please keep spreading the message. – Lets end the violence against women.”

Hans (#39): I take your point Hans, but it is the stunningly high number of WRDNZ supporters who express outrage at any suggestion that women could perhaps take meassures to reduce their risks of becoming rape victims. The comments sound like an encouragement to women: “Girl, it is OK if you want to dress like a sex worker, drink yourself to oblivion and roll around half naked in the gutter!”. But as fathers, don’t we all try to encourage our daughters to avoid getting into situations like these or am I the only one who does that?

Something I am grateful for John. Having suffered physical threats from others in this area, threats I take as real, I prefer to hide. The day is fast approaching though when al can be revealed and I can return to using my given name!

In essence, the White Ribbon Campaign is or should or could be about reducing abuse?

This makes it sound as though abuse is deliberate and with knowledge of the consequences. In most cases, this is not the case. Most abusers don’t understand that they are abusing, or how deeply their words might be cutting. These injuries are done in ignorance of the type and depth of the injury that they are delivering. Maybe someone quietly goes away and vandalises their own life, their own breath, their own warmth of life, after they were disparaged as a father, or stigmatised as a homosexual (whether they were or not), or laughed at for their clothes…..

The White Ribbon Campaigners sounded to me as though they are lifting up themselves, by looking down on rude, abusive men on MENZ website. I am not sure if this is the only way that they can feel good about themselves and each other? Or are they just doing this, to let us see how the world sees the MENZ website and us?

Our familycaught$ fiends can only feel good about themselves, by putting down aggressive, abusive wife beating men. I am not sure if this is the only way that they can feel good about their own abusive operations, overcharging, failing to competently address issues brought before them. It must have been difficult for them to restore their pride, after Kay Skelton’s misbehaviour and abuses were publicly exposed…..

How does judge fitzgerald look back on his time with Paul McMannaway, with the knowledge that he played a material part in Paul’s decision to cool off his own life and to fail to be an active father for his son? How does judge fitzgerald lift up his own self value, with this knowledge?

How can judge sarah flemming lift up her own self image, after hearing 5 successive sex abuse allegations against a father, with all of the wasted legal fees, wasted child’s relationship with the father? It sure must be hard……. I don’t think she has any understanding of the parental relationship she damaged, of how she played a part in vandalising that relationship, of the consequences that she brought down onto others..

I abused a workmate, by making fun of his sometimes erratic hand movements. I now take care of a lady dying from the same disease. I didn’t know anything (ignorant) about this disease, when I made that abuse….

I have to live with the responsibility of offering help to Paul McMannaway out of concern, but finding out that he chose to move ahead without accepting my offers.

I suspect that life with absolutely no abuse, happens only in the cemetery?
As parents, we have a duty to build up our children’s resilience.
Self responsibility = sensible risk management.
But this can never be the whole answer, as young children may be abused.
Don’t we need to retain some ability for abuse, if we want to be able to defend NZ?

Judge MacCormick does say some things which I am keen to support. I have reservations that midwives (or familycaught$ judges) have sufficient skills to perform such an assessment, but the concept is looking in the right direction.

So, can I suggest that we meet with our White Ribbon Campaigners and offer them support, kindness, counselling and Clonazepam?

Pete (#43): Yes, I agree with what you say about teaching people to take reasonable precautions, and this applies also to young men who might render themselves vulnerable through alcohol etc to being robbed or subjected to violence for the fun of it.

I also fully support ‘Slutwalk’-type demands for safety from sexual assault regardless of what clothes women wear and what time and place they wear them. However, I see the ‘Slutwalk’ mentality as showing a lack of consideration for young men’s strong sexual drive, and I believe that it is abusive to treat men’s nonabusive interest or approaches with contempt or as though they amounted to sexual offending.

#36..i dont want to see women get hurt and i do agree men should keep their hands to themselves but the reality of the matter is some dont and women should do a little better to protect themselves and if that means covering your crotch when you go out them maybe one should lengthen the hem a bit and i dont blame people but i refuse to take responsibility for others peoples shit

I recall visiting Waikato University Faculty of Education with thoughts of maybe training to become a teacher at the time of the Peter Ellis incident.
The entire wall above their front desk reception area was PLASTERED with about a dozen Anti-rape posters and several Domestic violence posters portraying only males as perpetrators.
The receptionist was emotionally cold and quite terse towards me, and the prevailing atmosphere was decidedly very anti-male.
I knew the one and only male pre-school teacher working at the varsity kindergarten there. A great teacher.
A young guy full of energy and enthusiasm. The kids loved him to bits. He got right down into kids level making mud pies, finger painting, making paper airplanes – the whole 9 yards.
The day after the Peter Ellis story broke he quit his job.
I met him by chance a few months later and asked him why he quit. He answered with two words “Peter Ellis”.

Meanwhile next door at Waikato University, Social Psychology lecturer Neville Robertson was regularly filling people’s heads with UNCORROBORATED statistics that 1 in 4 women in NZ had experienced sexual abuse in their lifetimes, as he continues to do to this day from what I gather.
The department of Social Sciences there had lecturers’ doors – (Pamela Oliver and Jane Ritchie plus several Psychology Tutors) with cartoons on them.
The cartoons showed 2 aliens in a spaceship looking down on planet earth.
One alien was saying to another “Is there any intelligent life on this planet?”
The other alien responded “The ones with brains look fine, I’m not so sure about the ones with testicles”.
The very same cartoon was on the front door and IN THE COUNSELING ROOM of one of the university counselors.

Some time later when visiting UNITEC, Auckland I discovered it had approximately 80 women trainees to become pre-school teachers, and ZERO male trainees. Also the same institution had PAID FULL TIME officials offering career guidance counseling and finding scholarships FOR WOMEN ONLY. I investigated and found the situation was the same across ALL Auckland teacher training institutes.

During teacher training in a NZ primary school one of my supervising teachers ON THE VERY DAY I ENTERED HER CLASSROOM put a bright red cardboard ‘Post Office letter box” on her desk.
She then had the kids sit down and explained to them that they could post her notes if they had any concerns about their safety.
The school had 23 teachers – all female. During my stay there one of them brought a cake in on “International Women’s Day” with exhortations that we should all work to get more women in employment as they were hindered”.

I still find it mind boggling that such folks got paid to teach young and impressionable students.

These are just some of the tip of the iceberg reasons why I, AS A MALE, didn’t go into the teaching profession in New Zealand.
I quickly learned that children’s education in New Zealand is rife with subtle and not so subtle misandry.
I subsequently kept my distance from that profession despite being very ell qualified and one Principal begging me to take a job at his school – because as he put it “there weren’t enough male teachers”.

There’s no way I’m going to become the next Peter Ellis.

If a qualified New Zealand Journalist wishes to leave an e-mail address which can be confirmed by Hans Levin or site host John Potter as non-feminist I’d be glad to do an online interview, perhaps even by skype or through some other online medium.
Please understand I take such precautions because I’ve been interviewed before and burnt badly.
I discovered to my horror the hard way by seeing it in print that interviewer was a feminist and everything I said got twisted to support her males oppressors – females victims ideological view of the world.

It was not only pre-school Education that lost credibility with men because of the Peter Ellis affair, but the police and courts. Their part in the whole business gave a previously unseen glimpse into what any man could receive once the accusatory finger starts pointing.

Education people may appeal all they like about how much children need men as role models, and they might even convince us they have changed their ways to be more welcoming, but no man should take any notice of it until the police and courts do the same.

Yes John, I agree.
And worried they should be as like other feminist groups they are being rapidly exposed.
The cat is out of the bag. They’re in damage control mode.
I took a look at their site and was aghast because their whole approach appears mired in sexist assumptions.
They try to build a case for providing a service for abused women only as a priority by banging on about men’s violence having more harmful impact on women whilst COMPLETELY OVERLOOKING WOMEN’S VIOLENCE BY PROXY and the fact that women can commit extreme acts violence with impunity simply with unfounded accusations. That’s the incessant background threat any man in a live in relationship with a woman in NZ constantly has to live with. The White Ribbon crowd don’t even acknowledge such a threat exists. They are gender blind in my view.

I tried to tell them such in a respectfully worded comment which contained no ad hominems to their facebook page.
5 minutes later I went back and checked – they’d erased my comment!
The hypocrisy of calling others controlling!

The WRC is a coalition of dozens of feminist-aligned organisations employing hundreds of workers collectively receiving $millions of public funding. They have the full power of the State justice system behind them.

MENZ is one guy running a public forum from the corner of his bedroom, with an annual budget of less than $1,000 that I mostly pay from my own pocket.

I personally have never encouraged anyone to “express their disapproval” on the WRC Facebook page, and I have never visited it myself.

Their statement: “A new Facebook site was set up by Menz members” is meaningless – anyone at all can register as a member of my site, and a wide range of opinions and viewpoints is tolerated. There is no mechanism for enforcing ideological conformity, unlike the WRC.

They claim: “As violent and oppressive as undoubtedly some of these men have been”, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

They say: “By encouraging disagreeable posts, the Menz website helped to create an environment where the mitigation of rape and blaming of women occurred.” They provide no evidence of this either.

Another statement: “The very website which encouraged what is known as ‘flaming’ has had to douse the ugliness on its own site, and cleanse some of the comments so as to appear moderate” is also not substantiated. I do remove the occasional comment which blatantly violates the published rules, but appearing moderate has never been an objective of MENZ.

Contrary to their insinuation, my worldview has not evolved from having “been through a separation and then had to work through the judicial system to try and obtain custody and other arrangements.” I have never personally dealt with the Family Court and I’ve been happily married for over 20 years.

This WRC post is a good example of the structural or social violence which is perpetrated by radical feminists in our country on a regular basis; spreading outright lies and misinformation, false accusations of abusiveness, personal attacks and intimidation.

John,
You A bully, Yeah Right. You offer freedom of expression, something we really need. Something the so called Men’s movement also offers. We al recognise and embrace differing views with tolerance and freedom of expression.

I see the White Ribbon site is attempting to justify its sexist discrimination against male domestic violence victims. Their stated argument is that beaten men do not fear their female assailants as much as women fear men.

At least they can actually admit that beaten men exist.

Their argument is, however, appalling.

There are people who fear violence from those of other races, and can equally find support in violent crime statistics. We still find their blanket stereotyping of innocent people due to their race to be the very spirit of bigotry.

JP @ #59.
I’m with you on every word you posted there John.
The White Ribbon Campaign is a disgrace to victims of abuse, and as you point out their approach to you personally and the MENZ website is simply crude misinformation.
They appear to be on the back foot which is unsurprising given they have obviously grown used to operating their program free of criticism – or what you might rightly call transparency and public accountability.
Incidentally, that alone would be sufficient reason for me to never donate to them.

But let’s unpack their rational a little shall we?
They state categorically on their websitehttp://whiteribbon.org.nz/2012/08/01/freedom-of-expression-or-bullying/
that their sole focus is on helping women abused by men because men, being physically larger usually inflict more harm on women.
That seems reasonable until one does a little thinking about such matters.

Obviously as mentioned earlier, quite apart from failing to acknowledge the massive harm to men any female violence by proxy inflicts they make other glaring omissions.
First off, they fail to acknowledge the women who use knives, hot fluids, furnishings, tools, hell even cars, who are MUCH DEADLIER.
Obviously they don’t follow the news very closely!

Then there’s this which is equally disturbing.
Even if one follows their rational that they aid the weaker folks (women) as a moral duty they make this other appalling omission.
It is well documented in social science literature that in NZ women commit by far the greatest bulk of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN. That’s right those little human beings many who can’t even walk or talk yet, let alone stand up to an out of control enraged full grown woman.
So following their own logic one could be forgiven for thinking that is where the White Ribbon campaign should morally be focused right?

But such a drive apparently doesn’t have the same cultural cache in a society that’s been demonstrably given the message countless times from feminists at all social levels to follow the fairytale woman good, man bad model.

It strike me therefore that what we’re doing here is deconstructing the myth of NZ feminism and NZ womanhood.
No wonder then they feel threatened and are lashing out wildly with false accusations about you and the MENZ website. After all, as many of us with our eyes wide open know that’s just the kind of thing that so many NZ women do to control others.
What’s interesting this time though is that I don’t see them getting violence by proxy support from white knights acting all chivalrous to save them.
That’s another positive sign to me that the deconstruction of feminism as an outmoded model for human interaction is gaining momentum in NZ, as it is in other parts of the world.

The only bullying throughout this saga has come from the NZ White Ribbon administrators. They are bare-faced liars about the comments placed on their site that they deleted in order to misrepresent without accountability. None of those comments said anything remotely approaching ‘bullying’, ‘abuse’ or ‘victim-blaming’ but the White Ribbon administrators simply fib to justify their censorship. Their dishonest efforts to discredit Hans Laven amounted to verbal and emotional violence by pretending that he was responsible for some victim-blaming comment about rape, and they continue to lie in attempting to discredit others who dare to criticize their campaign. The NZ White Ribbon people claim to be opposed to violence but readily use it to protect their propaganda and power base.

The article ‘Freedom of Expression or Bullying?’ from White Ribbon continues their misrepresentation in various ways. It states “White Ribbon banned several people from the White Ribbon Facebook site because of inappropriate, aggressive and victim blaming language.” and later “By encouraging disagreeable posts, the Menz website helped to create an environment where the mitigation of rape and blaming of women occurred.”. However, the only comment suggesting any mitigation of rape, victim-blaming language or blaming of women came from the White Ribbon administrators who dug up some comment from an unknown source and deliberately, dishonestly associated it with those who had criticized their campaign with no inappropriate or aggressive language at all, unless you count calling the White Ribbon Campaign ‘sexist’ as such. This appalling, deceitful spin from NZ White Ribbon administrators is beyond belief.
The article further states: “Men such as Michael Laws who represent a segment within our society who object vehemently to the very mention of White Ribbon. They argue that concentrating on men’s violence is sexist and more to the point, that women are as violent as men.” and “Some men’s groups argue that women are just as violent, citing studies that measure instances of violence’ ‘But the groups who oppose White Ribbon refute this gender analysis pointing to international research that purports to show that women are more violent than men, such as the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Such research utilises scales like the internationally recognised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)…What it does not measure, is the nature or consequences of that violence i.e. the frequency of injury or severity of injury.’ Well firstly I don’t think Michael Laws had any role with those who participated in the short-lived and now censored debate on the White Ribbon site. More importantly, I recall writing a comment stating clearly that women commit as many violent acts as men do against their heterosexual intimate partners but that the violence committed by men was about 4 times as serious (in terms of injuries caused) as that committed by women. Yet here we have the White Ribbon administrators further misrepresenting the comments that they deleted, now suggesting those comments claimed male and female domestic violence was equally serious. And even extending this to claim ‘But the groups who oppose White Ribbon refute this gender analysis pointing to international research that purports to show that women are more violent than men…’ I don’t recall any comment in the relevant debate ever claiming that women are more violent than men.
Remember though that the now-censored debate was around an article about verbal and emotional violence, something that women probably perpetrate at rates and seriousness more similar to men.
The article further states: ‘In New Zealand the most serious violence, the hospitalisations, the assaults, the arrests and the deaths are predominately men’s violence towards women. The second highest number is men’s violence towards other men.’ This is simply untrue. It’s bizarre that the White Ribbon people are allowed to believe and to spread such falsehood in referring to violence generally as opposed to domestic violence specifically. The White Ribbon Campaign does not focus on domestic violence but on violence generally; indeed, according to their article, the campaign arose from women being murdered by some lunatic at a Canadian polytechnic. In our society men are much more often the victims of homicide and serious violence than are women. For example, see http://www.health.govt.nz/nz-health-statistics/health-statistics-and-data-sets/maori-health-data-and-stats/tatau-kahukura-maori-health-chart-book/nga-mana-hauora-tutohu-health-status-indicators/interpersonal-violence. This doesn’t even take into account those many men we send to suffer violence, injury and/or death in wars and employed work. It is correct that most violence is committed by men but it is also true that women commit homicide and serious violence at a significant rate against both men and women.
The article further states: ‘If men are truly honest they will say that what she does might be upsetting or piss them off, but the reality around his violence is that it is really scary’. Well, tell that to the men killed by jealous or substance-affected female partners or ex-partners (e.g. see: http://menz.org.nz/2011/new-zealand-homicides-of-male-intimate-partners-committed-by-women-2009-2010/). Those of us who support men have often worked with men who are very afraid of their female partner’s violence and are controlled by it. This includes physical violence in which the woman might attack her male partner with such weapons as stiletto heels, heavy pans, knives or sharp fingernails. Many men follow a code in which they would not physically fight a woman and such men are left in a very frightening situation when they are physically attacked whilst allowing themselves only the options of trying to protect themselves or to escape. When it comes to other forms of violence such as unfair frequent criticism, false allegations, vexatious litigation, economic enslavement through so-called ‘child support’, parental alienation and using children as pawns for power and control, many separated men live in fear every day.
The article further states: ‘An abusive male partner acknowledges less of his violence while his partner is likely to acknowledge every act of hers…’ Sorry, this is not the experience of many men who find their female partners very reluctant to take responsibility for wrongdoing. It is also not evident in criminal cases against women who have committed violence; they seldom seem to take responsibility for their violence but instead blame others, circumstances etc and their excuses are often supported by female-friendly Courts. Meanwhile, female offenders are likely to be supported by feminist groups who encourage them to blame some man in their lives, and we never see feminist groups challenging the light sentences usually given to female offenders. None of this is consistent with the idea that women are more likely to acknowledge their acts of violence than are men.
Finally, the article states: ‘The Tactics Scale and the cohort study (Dunedin Longitudinal Study) are repeated in some form every time someone in New Zealand claims that violence between men and women is equal.’ Well firstly, Professor David Fergusson’s studies were on the Christchurch Longitudinal Study, but similar findings have been reported by numerous studies internationally, that partner physical violence is initiated approximately equally by males and females but male violence much more often causes serious injury. Secondly, I doubt anyone in New Zealand has claimed that violence between men and women is equal. People may quite correctly claim that intimate partner violence between men and women is approximately equal in frequency (but not in seriousness), but no informed person would claim that violence is gender-equal in society generally. Men both commit and are victimized by violence much more than women. Thirdly, whether violence is equal between men and women was not the issue in the censored White Ribbon debate. The issue was that men suffer from violence at significant rates and an anti-violence campaign that implies violence against men doesn’t matter is sexist and misandrist.

We have to wonder what has occurred to many of these men to see how their ‘world view’ has evolved. One generalisation is that many of these men have been through a separation and then had to work through the judicial system to try and obtain custody and other arrangements.

Yes, that would be a really good start!

If you work in the violence prevention sector, you’ll have met men who use power and control in their relationships and sometimes physical violence as well. When the issues come to a head through separation, the police, courts and sometimes Child Youth and Family, their worlds can fall apart, leading to isolation (and sometimes) suicide. As violent and oppressive as undoubtedly some of these men have been, it’s sad to know that while White Ribbon challenges their world view, they reject the White Ribbon Campaign out of hand and revert to calling it an attempt by women to further dominate the world.

And this is how far their “wondering” gets them: lets just call these men oppressive and violent, it is their own fault, they deserve what they get.

Yes, good point Pete (#67). Note also the old “using power and control in their relationships” chestnut is rolled out as being an exclusively male habit when the truth is that both men and women will use various methods to control their environments and partners, and this is a natural tendency. We all want our situations to suit our preferences after all. Think about the typical heterosexual household. Whose preferences predominate in the way the house is kept, decorated and presented? How many store a handy toolbox or the daily-used bicycle in the living area as might happen in a household of only single men? Why would it be that male possessions are usually relegated to the garage while possessions that females appreciate dominate the living areas? It’s because of the ways that women exercise their methods of power and control. That’s not a criticism, except concerning the duplicity of condemning any effort by men to have things around them the way they prefer.

To refer to “violent and oppressive” as characteristics only of men is sexist and inaccurate.

The ‘patriarchal power and control’ model was always a feminist ideological theory unsupported by good research or even good reasoning. It may be a useful way of considering a very small proportion of family conflict situations but it is a highly inaccurate for most. Yet the domestic violence industry loves to reduce the complexities of every problem to a male-blaming ‘power and control’ assumption, and we hear the likes of Heather Henare from Women’s Refuge taking every opportunity to perpetuate the myth of patriarchal power and control.

Yes, and feminist domination of the world is exactly what’s happening here. Domination through the age-old methods of deceit, propaganda, stereotyping, discrimination, violence and erosion of the civil and human rights of the dominated group.

Sounds like the white ribbon brigade need to be shown for who they are. I suggest an organized campaign before their ‘white ribbon’ day and also ON ‘white ribbon’ day, so that the public understand that this organization is not supporting violence against children and men…..

Just got back from the local Hospital. There were 4 “It’s Not OK” posters there. One showing a female screaming at her children, caption “Its not OK to put others down” and the other of a male caption “It is OK to seek help when you are abused” a much better campaign I suggest. I think the families commission funds this also.

Wow Gwahir (#70), that’s amazing! And here’s me thinking we were not achieving anything except threats, lies, verbal and emotional violence from the male-haters protecting their power base and propaganda.

I suspect there has been pressure on the Families Commission from someone in government who realizes the misandrist duplicity can’t be defended and will eventually come back to bite those responsible (as more and more people have their veil of blindness removed through awareness of the real gender issues). I doubt very much whether any change came from those feminist bureaucrats who have been discriminating against men for decades now.

Although it’s a very good sign, a few posters on the wall showing a token gesture towards gender inclusiveness and recognition that men are victims too will make little practical difference for most NZ men who continue to be treated in law and beyond as second-class citizens, the ‘unclean class’ and slaves.

As a woman who grew up in a household where my mother had post-natal depression and abused my sibling, she received little help for her illness and my father took the flack for abuse because there is an automatic assumption that males are the violent party. I have experienced first-hand this damaging issue, and it had a lot of bad effects through the family courts. I believe that in those who are against domestic violence (not gender specific) there are plenty of people who are balanced in their views, there are definitely those who are not.
On white ribbon, it is clearly focusing on the side of males against females. Our country has a huge problem, I have witnessed this around a lot of friends and victims I’ve worked with. You cannot deny that there is a problem here.
But they can’t deny that there is a lot of abuse from females to males. Most people wouldn’t deny that.
Also male to male, and female to female. Sexual and/or agressive. To children.
I see in an earlier comment that they claim females and males are equally violent. Give proof. There are many studies that dispute that. So is that the evidence we will base conclusions on.
But aside from that, I think we need to be against ALL domestic violence.
However, on here, I am disgusted. Because it seems that this generalises the supporters of White Ribbon to man-hating. I think there is a lot of sexism within their management, which is awful, it should be changed.
But there is on here too.
Shinhee Yi, you have particularly stood out.
“BXXchs want power over men by doing this sort of campaign to introduce more women friendly legislation.

Looks like this is country where it’s legal for women to commit adulatory.”

When you refer to WOMEN as B**ches, you’re doing nothing for your cause.

Dear Noway, thank you for your balanced perspective that all domestic violence and abuse should be addressed for what it is. Also, thank you for your comment about your father taking a lot of abuse and unhelp in the wake of your mother’s unaddressed problems. I have also seen this dynamic in several situations and prejudiced “support” did more harm than assistance for these families. Incompetent support can do more harm than good, it certainly harms the taxpayer.

Whilst bitching and moaning has its place in therapy, it doesn’t help if your purpose is to communicate to the wider public, who vote. You have put this very well Noway, thanks. Are we trying to work for positive change?

I think the White Ribbon management’s willful ignoring of female perpetrated violence means they reduce themselves to misandry.
It’s a sad state of affairs as in doing so they perpetuate feminist stereotypes – men bad, women good and exacerbate the problem of domestic violence in NZ. That’s violence.
In doing so they rip off NZ taxpayers. That’s violence.
In doing so they blatantly censor respectfully worded voices which disagree with their own on their website.
In doing so they willfully ignore and add to the the massive problem of women’s perpetration of crying wolf to commit violence by proxy.
That’s power and control. On that point I’m in total agreement with Shinhee Yee.

I’m glad you called Shinhee Yi out for his unfortunate use of dehumanizing language – “bitches”.
However I can acknowledge his anger which lay behind that comment.
I think you could connect with him by acknowledging he’s angry. Note I don’t say you need agree with his views, just acknowledge his feeling. This might encourage him to open up and express reasons why he views adultery as legal for women in NZ (a view I don’t undertand but remain open to hearing more about).
When you don’t acknowledge his anger I get concerned that you’re simply closing him down, alienating him through criticism without connection.

I think that we (certainly i) as males can sometimes be guilty of demonising women as a result of our bitter expereinces. I like women.
I do not like the legal system that enables vindictive and twisted women to abuse us with the seeming authority of the law.
If one reads through this site, there is a great deal of complaining (justifiably) and little in the way of activity. I for one will petition my MP, am holding the IRD and my ex to account. If each and every one of us undertakes to do at leat one positive thing to “out” the whole stiniking process of court decisions and IRD administrative reviews etc, perhaps we will be heard?

Norway (#73): I agree with you in rejecting abusive references on the basis of gender. I commend you for your efforts to see the issue of violence in a balanced and realistic way. Concerning an (unspecified) earlier comment that you say claimed females and males are equally violent, that is clearly incorrect. We must remember that this is an open forum that exercises very little moderation or censorship, and many people will make statements and give their own opinions that do not necessarily reflect the views of any other contributors. In the interests of fairness it’s a good idea to assess what opinions here are widely shared by contributors before singling out single, unsupported comments that often have already been challenged by other contributors.

Men are much more physically violent than women are in society generally and that includes sexual violence. That may not be so when it comes to some other forms of violence such as verbal and emotional violence. However, numerous studies internationally have now shown that women initiate physical violence towards their intimate partners about as frequently as men do, but men’s physical violence more often causes injury and causes more serious injuries, on average. The proportion appears to be similar to that for intimate partner homicide, i.e. men’s violence is about four times more injurious than is women’s. Feminists are probably correct that male violence, on average, is more frightening and more often used to control partners than the other way around (women use other methods to gain power in relationships). However, the point is that there is still a significant level of violence, serious injury and homicide caused by women to their male intimate partners and this should not be treated as nonexistent or acceptable. Further, men are much more often and more seriously the victims of violence in society generally; most of that violence is caused by other men but that makes little difference to the suffering of the victims. The White Ribbon Campaign excludes male victims of violence from its consideration and this both spreads implied misinformation (that violence towards men doesn’t happen enough to be concerned about) and contempt for male victims (we don’t need to mention them because they don’t really matter), contributing significantly to the misandry that has become so fashionable and has so influenced law and policy.

It’s true that the White Ribbon Campaign implies denial that female violence towards men occurs, but more importantly it excludes male victims of violence, whether from men or women, and treats them as unimportant. The attitude was epitomized by a White Ribbon apologist on the ‘White Ribbon Debate’ Facebook page: when someone provided official statistics showing many more men than women are murdered in NZ each year, she dismissed any importance of this by saying “That’s just because men live more violently”. So, it’s their own fault and we needn’t care.

Well written. There is another aspect to the white ribbon ideology that is also missed; children.
If you include the stats of male and child homicide in domestic violence you have the majority of homicides. So, to only talk about homicide against women is to talk about a minority.
I stand against all forms of domestic violence against anyone. That is what the problem is with groups like the white ribbon campaign.
If they embraced that philosophy then they would have a larger support base 🙂

Instead they see the discussion as an attack…… I guess the truth hurts….

It is a matter of working at things locally.
I have for several years been a member of our local Kapiti Voices against Violence group.
Kapiti had the distinction of being the first White Ribbon Council and having one of our major businesses supporting the White Ribbon campaign.
With persuasion from myself and others Kapiti now defines White Ribbon as against all violence. Violence against men, women and children and from men, women and children. While it is still not enough for me to wear the white ribbon myself I do think that is a much more positive approach. A couple of years ago at a men’s forum hosted by the Families Commision they got roundly roasted by a significant majority of the guys there about their support for White Ribbon. Unfortunately it was water off a duck’s back. They have not yet got enough heat to open their eyes to the wider picture.
All violence is bad, it is just NOT OK and we all need to be on that kaupapa.

All violence is bad, it is just NOT OK and we all need to be on that kaupapa.

That’s a nice PC slogan but simplistic and light on reasoning and analysis. Such shallow slogans will be counter-productive in the long run.

How shall we define violence? Maintaining order and safety in society relies upon violence. Putting someone on the ground, handcuffing them and forcing them into a locked cell is all pretty violent even if the victim is guilty of wrongdoing, possibly more so if the victim is innocent. What about batoning, tasering or shooting them? You might argue “but that’s to prevent even worse violence” but that’s often not so at all, e.g. when it’s done on an arrest warrant for unpaid fines regarding unlicenced vehicles or against a protection-ordered father who waves lovingly to his children in a passing car.

The parent who hits a spouse for fucking a third party may be seen as attempting to prevent the much worse violence of a broken home that damages the children’s lives. So the ‘preventing even worse violence’ argument equally supports jealous violence.

When we buy into shallow slogans against violence we support a process in which citizens are no longer allowed to use force to maintain social order or to protect their families, but instead the use of force is increasingly restricted to government agents. That’s actually a very dangerous situation. Firstly it’s likely to lead to much more violence by the state against the people then eventually civil disorder and war. Secondly, the state is usually incapable of maintaining enough agents to maintain the order that previously was maintained by citizens in their own streets. The state can only replace people power through constant erosion of civil rights, constant increases in the number of paid agents of the state and constant increases in its violence towards the people. The cumbersome state system of uniformed agents and courts will never keep up unless the state becomes totalitarian. That’s exactly what we are seeing with the feminist state and mindless religious absolutism against ‘violence’.

It’s more sensible for the state to allow a carefully proscribed degree of violence by its citizens to maintain order and community standards of behaviour. When the men in a street get together to intimidate or physically hurt a sexual predator or wife beater until that offender desists from those practices, this would sensibly be forgiven by the state. The same applies to fraudsters, burglars, drunk drivers or false accusers. An absolute religion against violence is foolish.

Here’s an example of what happens when we buy into absolutist slogans about violence. Witch-hunters at school interrogate children who disclose that their father used relatively minor violence against his children. The anti-violence inquisition is unleashed against him. The children are ‘protected’ from the witch by being ripped from their family unit, separated from each other and farmed out to various CYFS placements with strangers. Great, that should be good for them! The stress and heartache drives their mother to an early death so the children lose their mother and of course they can’t get emotional support from their father about this because of orders preventing any contact between them. So our jumbled religion of anti-violence has caused immense violence and harm towards these poor children who would have been much better off remaining in their mildly violent family unit. If the whole situation had been managed without the blindness of an absolutist religion against violence, sensible support could have been provided teaching the father more fashionable ways of dealing with stress and children’s misbehaviour, accepting that the process of change would for a time see him still revert to occasional physical outbursts likely to be as non-injurious as they previously were. The cost of such sensible support would probably have been a fraction of the Court proceedings, and the children would still have a family unit, a mother and each other. But children’s real welfare matters little in our religious crusade on the side of right! We have been brainwashed to believe that children will be irreversibly damaged if they are ever struck by a parent or have to see their parent lose his/her temper, and it’s justified to rip apart their family unit to save them from this. Out, damned devil!

Dear blamemenforall, this is now sometimes happening to women too. This reflects lack of knowledge and skills on the part of the social workers. Then it ends up in a hearing before some clown of a familycaught$ judge, who knows even less about child development and child neglect and injury issues. This the cheque$ and balance$ that should be provided in the caught hearing never occurs.

Twenty years ago, social workers received training on empowering women clients and no training on assessing child injury or neglect. I am not sure if it has improved much since. Given the demonstrated inability of CYFs to assess problems around quality of caring for children, inability to diagnose what is the actual problem, they just try treatments and programmes and see what comes out. This would be like a doctor saying to you, I haven’t prescribed any Clonazepam for a few weeks, the sales rep visited me a few days ago, would you like to try some?

Protecting children from unskilled and dangerous parents is a near impossible task anyway, but if your training is irrelevant, even unhelpful, then nobody stands a chance. The only way that children can be protected from serious damage by parents, is to assess their skills and resilience, before they have children.

Funny isn’t it, CYFs have never yet received a written complain from a baby, about the quality of care that they are receiving from their parents. Maybe CYFs just screw them up and throw them away? Or maybe NZ babies can’t write good letters, or can’t find CYFs address, or afford the stamp for the envelope….

Protecting children after serious damage has been done, is sacrificing children. Emotional neglect especially, only becomes diagnosable a few years after extremely serious damage has been completed. Thus CYFs style of responding to visible, serious harm, can only fail to protect children.

Incompetent parents cannot see the skills that they lack, any more than an incompetent judge cannot see what skills they lack. This is why familycaught$ judges are failing to lead protection of children. They can situp and say stern words to someone who has broken a child’s bones. They can look ok on TV, but they miss thousands and thousands of cases of neglected children and leave them further unprotected with incompetent parents, to develop into fully fledged personality disordered parents, burglars, murderers, rapists, arsonists and the rest. All the better to keep our caughts busy with valueless, worthless activities…..

Bruises heal in 3 weeks, broken bones heal in 6 weeks, emotionally neglected children heal in 25 to 40 years, maybe. Violence with love, is far less damaging than emotional neglect. Tearing apart families is more often relationship vandalism, than protecting children.

Can judges measure love?
To me, they always seemed more competent in measuring money and what they could get away with.

Personally I see it very simply.
All violence is NOT OK.
All your justification of violence Blamemenforall just reinforces my view that we need to stick to simple messages.
It served Ghandi and many other activists and I am relaxed about the message myself.

Dear blamemenforall, I believe that you are saying that when the justice system fails to deliver protection for citizens, fathers, men, children, women, then citizens will end up looking for alternative means of protecting their interests.

One example is the Canadian father, who abducted his daughter when he was unable to protect her from the mother’s destructive parenting – when the local familycaught$ refused to respond to his applications.

When the Government departments cannot or will not do their proper function, or where they prey on citizens for unjust personal financial gain, then citizens concerned for the welfare of their children are essentially forced to act outside of the Government systems.

I personally have little faith in the skills of familycaught$ at relationship protection, child protection, or protection from abduction, or skills for sorting out abductions after the event. I do have confidence in their skills to protect their own personal paramount financial interests, which offers little workable hope for families.

I have confidence in the familycaught$ judges skills in disclaiming responsibility for driving parents insane or to suicide. These skills offer very little hope for families. Although judge boshier suggested that mental health help be given to parents dealing with familycaught$, he didn’t respond to suggestions that if judges followed legislation and honoured the judicial oath, that suicide and driven insane rates in familycaught$ would be far lower.

In other words, their incompetence and malpractice is the largest single suicide driver and conversely the death rate from competent familycaught practice with integrity would be a hundred times lower. (If in a street fight, a fighter falls and hits their head on the pavement and dies from bleeding in the brain, the other fighter will be liable for manslaughter, even if they had an unusually weak blood vessel. So judge boshier’s blaming victims of familycaught, is failing to address the quality failures in familycaught killing a few hundred parents each year. These deaths would be easily avoidable, by following the judicial oath of integrity.)

These situations usually have some complexity. Simple slogans often fail to address the intricacies of human relationships and crimes. Failing to address problems creates new and dangerous problems. We must face the complexities of our world, not that this is really difficult and solve problems without creating further problems. MurrayBacon.

So Allan Harvey (#85), you don’t think it’s ok for police to apprehend people, or to taser or shoot them? And you don’t think it’s ok for prison officers to force inmates back into their cells using force? And you think it’s better to wreck a child’s family and life than leave the child in a family unit that uses smacking?

Unfortunately blamemenforall Having seen What prison officers and SOME police tolerate NO! While police are human and some let power go to their heads, They are far from the majority. If you don’t want to be Tasared,Forced into cells or shot, DON’T break the law!

That is totally correct blamemenforall.
If talking can succeed then there is no need for anyone to ever use violence.
Police, corrections officers and parents use lots and lots of non-violence strategies as their primary skills.
Apprehension, taser and shooting people come well down the list and often just inflame situations.
The philosophy is called pacifism and I’m pleased to be a student of such a practice.

Oops. So Gwahir (#88), violence is ok if you break the law. Then what happens to the nice slogan?

And Murray Bacon (#86), no I’m not really saying that when the justice system fails to deliver protection citizens will look for alternative means. I’m saying that the state can never successfully replace the role of citizens in maintaining the standards required for a community to function as a supportive place. It also cannot replace the role of parents in disciplining children. I’m saying that it’s dangerous to remove rights from people within their own families, streets and communities and to restrict those rights only to agents of the state. Foolish and a one-way street to social collapse.

So Allan Harvey (#89), it is totally correct that you believe it’s better to wreck a child’s family and life than to leave that child in a family that uses smacking. So a terribly damaging form of violence is ok while a non-damaging form of violence isn’t ok. Boy, that slogan sure works well…

Dear blamemenforall, I am of the opinion that Government does a lot of harm in its many social interventions, for example child support serves women’s interests, at some cost to children’s quality of childhood, CYFs do about as much damage as they do good, DV prosecutions generally do markedly more harm than good, including putting money into legal-worker’s pockets. We have a lot of room to improve the quality and safety of Government social policies. Cheers, MurrayBacon.

blamemenforall you put words in people’s mouths they have not uttered.
I repeat all violence is NOT OK.
What do you mean when you say, “better to wreck a child’s family and life than leave the child in a family unit that uses smacking”? What do you mean when you further say, “a terribly damaging form of violence is ok while a non-damaging form of violence isn’t ok”?

If you could define matters would be helpful. I do think that working with families and parent education is much better than smacking. That is what I meant by my statement. Leaving matters without support when parents feel so pushed they resort to physical violence is not OK. The forced removal of children from their homes that you may imply is normally not OK but in some situations is neccesary. It is unlikely to be of any benefit for the children or their whanau in most sitations and so is a rarely used strategy.

Much of what Murray says has wisdom and the ring of experience from someone who is familar with case work.
I have been involved in the execution of several warrants to enforce and thankfully most parties see the benefit of orderly transitions for the benefit of children despite their own inner turmoil. In those situation that have needed higher levels of intervention things have been stressful for everyone. As an active case work person I know matters from both sides. None of the cases I have dealt with have had smacking as the primary matter of concern. I am yet to hear of a case locally where smacking has been the primary reason for intervention. The major issues in cases I work with have been mental health, addiction and violence (sexual, physical, emotional and potential risk based on extensive prior history).

I understand and accept blamemenforall’s argument that absolutes rarely exist, and that any slogan can be challenged and picked to pieces. Having said that, i find blamemenforall’s “helpful” semantic arguments patronising in the extreme.
I guess your name “blamemenforall” is contextual and not necessarily an absolute? Please enlighten me-i am unable to think past your name. Thanking you (and not feeling particularly “shafted” as of this minute)- – – shafted.

Allan,
I see you’re cherry picking what violence means.
On the one hand you’re apparently equating violence with smacking, on the other state coercive intervention (the grown up version of smacking) isn’t deemed by you to be violent.
See the inconsistency.
And there Blame men is referring to state sponsored violence and has a point which I think you’ve glossed over.

BTW, are you still accepting payments to supervise fathers who’ve been scooped up by the system and deemed violent without proof or any form of due process?
A yes or no answer instead of waffling and squirming would be appreciated this time.
If you are getting paid for such, then I can see why you’d rush to overlook blamemenforalls view, and as someone who equates smacking (physical force against small humans) with violence, yet is clearly OK with state intervention (including threats and/or use of physical force against adult humans), don’t you think it’s more than a bit rich prosletising about what and what isn’t violence?

Hi Skeptic,
I do not distinguish about violence. All violence is not OK be it state sanctioned or not.
I have a fairly extensive record of opposition to state sanctioned violence and I don’t think I am trying to be inconsistent in my views.
Yes I still run a supervised contact centre when the need arises. Only one family use my premises for changeovers at the moment and they don’t pay me. I have 2 families that are considering using my services at this time. That work comes and goes and I’m available to provide a service as needed. If people wish to reimburse me for my time, costs and facilities that is there business. I do not have a contract with the Ministry of Justice or CYFS.
I remain a member of Aoteoroa New Zealand Association of Supervised Children’s Contact Services (http://www.anzascs.org.nz/) and I do so as I think they do sterling work allowing children to have contact with their parents in often very difficult circumstances. It is a pity that their work is often made more difficult by ignorance and hostility towards the service providers rather than matters being more appropriately targeted at vindictive litigants, zealous lawyers and systemic delays. Sometimes people subject to section 60 issues also need to reflect about their own actions, or lack of thought, that make them easy prey for such applications against them in the Family Court.
I have on many occasions listened to stories from families who cannot locate any professional service provider to help provide children with regular, safe parental contact. That worries me more than those who get stiched up by s60 allegations based on perjury. In bigger centres something can be done to ensure contact happens. In many parts of New Zealand children go months and months without appropriate parental contact. Big people (parents) may be able to understand why this happens. Kids cannot. That is the wonderful service which I and other providers of supervised contact offer to kids in difficult situations.

Allan,
I’m glad you say all violence is unacceptable.
That’s a nice sound bite.
Let’s get this totally clear though – you ONLY supervise parents on a pro bono basis these days? Is that what you’re saying?
Please clarify as you only mention not having contracts with the Ministry of Justice or CYFS which isn’t what you were asked.
If it’s the case that you only do pro bono work, then I think you’ve taken a wonderful step in the right direction and I heartily endorse you no longer personally profiting (at least financially) from the misery of parents accused of violence towards their children and sanctioned without corroborative evidence.
For the record such systems strikes me as violent, totalitarian and abhorrent.

There are other things I still struggle with you about.
Firstly, many folks don’t call smacking (a light tap which leaves no marking) violence, we call it humane discipline. To say it is violence is an over reaction and rationalization sadly often used to create statist interference which erode family ties. It’s no coincidence that one of the most prominent advocates of defining smacking as violence is Sue Bradford who’s a socialist in favor of communistic type control of parents whereby the upshot is that too often social workers supplant the role of biological parents.
To buy into her kind of rhetoric is in my view misguided and dangerous. For the biological family as an institution in NZ is dreadfully fractured as it is what with no fault divorce, widespread misandry in family courts, many women’s false accusations and the pussy pass – without adding yet another layer of disempowering state controls.

But that doesn’t seem to be where you’re at.
For smacking is apparently deemed by you to be violence rather than compassionate parental discipline, whilst children being ripped apart from their parents by the state without corroborative evidence get supervised and pad your CV, and that’s OK in your book.
Whether you want to admit it or not I think you’re acting as an agent of the state which is weakening, not strengthening family. All your nice-nice comments about re-uniting family overlook the fact which blamemenforall alludes to – that many families shouldn’t be ripped apart with oppressive state controls in the first place.
You’re credentialing yourself with titles and reference to organizations doesn’t impress me either.
For NZ is but a tiny fraction of the global population, and I think you’d do well to go traveling the world a bit. I’m sure in doing so with an open mind you’d find many cultures unlike NZ where the government stays out of the business of family and family is MUCH stronger as a result.
Try living for a few years in parts of Asia and Latin America where childen haven’t been usurped by state control and families thrive for starters, then we might be on the same page.

Skeptic,
I don’t see how my answers are useful for you but persistence is certainly one of your characteristics that I admire.
Yes I take money from parents who wish to pay me. If they can be generous that is wonderful. If not then they and their kids still benefit from contact with each other.
Smacking has been a common feature of parenting. Yes I would call it violent but normally some education about other strategies helps people minimise it’s use. I strongly advice my clients not to smack as it places them and their children at risk.
I have said above that deciding to separate families is stressful stuff. I’m confident my track record on this area stands scrutiny but this is not the place to discuss it.
I spent a significant chunk of my early career teaching in places outside NZ mainly Africa. A lot of my energy went on encouraging principals, teachers and parents to use discipline strategies other than corporal punishment. I am one of those older NZ teachers who has used it (and it has immediate effect) but it isn’t the best long term strategy in my view.
PS I’m also a socialist and proud of that label as well.

Allan,
i forgive you your socialism and assume that time will fix that.
I concur with your views on smacking. I confess to having very occasionally smacked the children some years ago. I relaised that (at the risk of sounding like a PC wanker), that this was an abuse of the obvious power i had over the children.Therefore the issue to me became one of empathy. How could i condone my own behaviour, for whatever justification, given that the children had no choice /level playing field?
This is exactly the type of abuse i have been on the receiving end of , from the ex, the IRD and the family courts, together with my lawyers. They are all in a position of power over me, and all abuse it. That does not stop me fighting back but means the outcome is less likely to swing in my favour.
In so far as skeptics attack on you regarding supervised access, i truly mean let your conscience be your guide. if your motivations are honourable, thats all that matters.

Hi Shafted and others,
It is important we don’t percieve ourselves as victims. Yes many men are snookered (behind the 8 ball) with regards Family Court, IRD, lawyers etc. My experience is that with help and some skill, options can open up. That is the message Union of Fathers likes to spread. Write to me on allan@uof.org.nz if you think we could be of assistance.

Allan,
I can only imagine the duress some parents are under to fill your coffers with a ‘donation’ for ‘services’.
Plus I think you’re framing the issues wrongly.
For it isn’t being a victim to refuse to play the game you’re so mired in.
Look up the term the term zeta masculinity.
Trust me, it’s a paradigm shift – you start living then, instead of merely breathing.
BTW, I think socialism sucks at raising children.
NZ is a great example of that, although I know of more extreme examples as well.
It takes a family to raise a child, not a socialist village.

Dunne launched the family’s commission with the usual emptied-headed political promises and as predicted it has descended into an absolute failure. The Glenn inquiry is really just a privately funded version of the same thing. What are they going to do – hire some consultants and double the funding for White Ribbon?

Looks like White Ribbon is getting too hot for Families Commision and the decree they need to slim down in size by their National Party masters.

The Families Commission has transferred responsibility for the management and delivery of the White Ribbon campaign to an independent trust board.

The transfer from the Families Commission is being made through a conditional grant for a two-year period. The White Ribbon Trust Board will be fundraising to build revenue streams from 2015 and fully fund the campaign from 2016.

If true, then this is quite sad. NZ does desperately need something to protect families and push family oriented policy.

Family First are independant of Government. They are heavily christian based, but at least they/we unashamedly try to protect children and families. If christian money is needed, to get sufficient support to lobby Government and opposition parties, then so be it.

In my opinion, separated fathers should join in and give their support to Families First. There is a high degree of common interest – not surprisingly.

Um Murray (#108), the Pink & Blue Ribbon Campaign is an anti-abortion campaign. Not a ‘Give Fathers More Say in Abortion Decisions’ campaign or a ‘Require Women to Protect the Health of their Foetus if They Plan to Give Birth’ campaign and not even a ‘Promote Families’ campaign. Simply an anti-abortion campaign. If successful, hugely greater numbers of men will be enslaved to pay for the lifestyles of women.

The Campaign Web page says “It’s time we gave women real choice and information” and there is not mention of men at all aside from a single bracketed “(and fathers as well)” patronizing afterthought.

With regards to your run in with WRC, have you thought of sharing any information with AVFM over in the USA who also had a more recent run in with WRC( canada and possible Oz). They set up their own WRC ( run by Erin Prizzy).

i have not the time to read all the comments so i apologise if i repeat someone else’s comment.

I see so much about how ‘domestic violence’ is equal etc etc.

this is true but does not address the real issue that has been addressed by Peter Zohrab in his paper ‘Sex, Lies and Feminism’ and Greg Hallett in his book Ã¢â‚¬ËœAre You My Father’. – that is that Ã¢â‚¬Ëœdomestic violence’ is an Ã¢â‚¬ËœElite’ Ã¢â‚¬ËœNew World Order’ Ã¢â‚¬Ëœgovernment’ (or whatever you wish to call it) construct, made up in order to control the tax serfs.
It is one of a many pronged attack that anyone with an ounce of sense should be able to see.
It is a branch of Feminism which is also one of the prongs.
I cannot see how others cannot see the obvious.

“When injustice is endemic then injustice is the aim.” – Phil Watts (made it up just now”¦)

Regarding Ã¢â‚¬Ëœdomestic violence’, I don’t know if all pollutitians are corrupt or just stupid, but the definitions make anything able to be Ã¢â‚¬Ëœdomestic violence’.

Murray Bacon is right, courts are not legitimate but are instead Ã¢â‚¬Ëœcaughts’ a branch of government mafia.

btw as it is obvious that White Ribbon is a corrupt organisation ‘white Fibbon’ i hope someone mentioned the names behind it: the patron is Peter Boshier former ‘chief’ judge of the Femily Court, i wonder how many suicides he has on his hands?

“out damned spot” (but that requires guilt, and guilt is not present in psychopaths and sociopaths.) they never have problems sleeping.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.